Thank you. 🙏

Well said.

I echo this sentiment and just subscribed for that very reason. I’m actually learning vs someone just trying to gain a like, etc. Great tip at the end about manual focus. I have a vintage 50mm adapted to my 11-yr old Sony…it’s my favorite lens, but my primary concern was obtaining focus in time to not miss the shot. Peace.

I learned that one from back in the days of trying to manually focus a bride walking down the aisle with a 50mm.

@@WalkLikeAlice yeah I saw that in a video from Kai W and it makes a lot of sense with a rangefinder especially.

Thank you. Glad it was useful. 🙏🙏

Glad you found it useful

I too love that Fuji 33 1.4, but I mostly use auto focus! The lens is fast enough, and I don’t need to worry about depth the field so much.

Thank you

Thank you 🙏

Thank you. That’s very kind of you 🙏

Thanks for watching.

Thanks for watching.

Thank you 🙏

Thank you so much 🙏🙏

🙏

😊

Thanks Kev

Thanks for watching

Thank you for watching. Much appreciated.

Thank you. It takes a little getting used to but it’s worth it in the end.

Thank you

Thank you for watching

Thank you too 🙏

🙏🙏 Thanks for watching

Thank you. Yes the simplicity of the lens is one of its greatest strengths.

Thank you

👍

Thank you for watching 🙏

Thanks Sebastian. Yeah that Summarit size is very appealing.

🙏🙏

Thanks for watching 🙏

Thanks for watching.

Thank you 🙏

Thank you

Thanks for the comments. For me, the payoff with a larger lens is speed of focus and if you are shooting at f8, any additional accuracy is negated by depth of field. I had a Canon TS-E 45mm for a while.

Cheers. Hope it works for you.

Thank you

Glad you found it useful

Thanks for watching

🙏🙏

I’m the same way. I find getting interesting compositions with a 50 relatively easy, for exactly the reason described in the video: what your eye sees is what you get. You don’t have to reposition yourself to regain the composition you first imagined. I also just don’t enjoy getting right into the personal space of strangers with a camera and snapping a picture, which I feel like I have to do a lot with a wide angle lens to prevent extraneous details in the frame, thus ruining the composition and minimizing the subject. As it is, I keep 50s on all my cameras except my F3, which sports a 35. I use my F3 exclusively for closer shots of friends and family, where I’ve got enough trust built up that I don’t have any reservation about getting close (and where the fact that it’s shutter noise is about ten times that of my M6 TTL is not a problem, for the same reason)

We’ve all made the mistake of getting a camera out of the bag and hearing that slow shutter speed 😂

🙏

I’m not familiar with the lens. So I don’t know why there’s a lock on it. But I’m glad you like it.

Thank you. Check out the community post I made on film photography.

@@WalkLikeAlice oh I see. Its too bad - hope you get to taking som rolls at some point though.

That takes some skill. I can do it with a 35.

@@WalkLikeAlice If I could do it with a .95 I would be very happy haha. Don't have one though so haven't tried. Everyone really appreciates the quality of your channel. Real Photographer Talk.

@@WalkLikeAlice I really love the 50 APO with the M11M for street. A little easier wide open.

Thank you 🙏 Just keep at it. Rangefinder focusing takes some getting used to and a lot of practice. It’s worth it in the end.

@@WalkLikeAlice Thanks for the encouraging words, Jeff!

Thank you!!

I found shooting on the street with it quite a challenge. Still do!!

Thank you. There are some 50mm videos in our Image of the week playlist. That might be worth a watch.

🙏

Great lens

Thank you

Ditto. It produces amazing results, but is really better suited to short walks ...

Yeah. It also blocks the viewfinder too much for street. You need a few seconds to check the framing all the time.

Thanks Paul. Take care.

🙏

I was the other way round!!

Thank you. Night photography is something I need to do more of.

Me too but mostly because I've spent so much money on it so I can't afford any other lenses lol

Thank you. Yes, you don’t get the same flexibility with the 50.

I don’t think I’ve ever jumped backwards on the street!!

👍🙏

Not sure where you think I mentioned SFX. I haven’t used that for years!! Everything is processed with my SilverChrome pack. 🙂

my mistake !@@WalkLikeAlice

Yeah the wides are easier. Thats for sure.

👍

Thanks, but I’m good. Quite happy with the lens I’ve already got. We’ve been on this earth together for 25 years. I know it inside out. 🙏

Something halfway between 35 & 50. It would sell. But when camera companies can sell you both lenses, I think something in between wouldn’t make a lot of sense for them.

Thanks for watching.

You won’t block the viewfinder either!!

@@WalkLikeAlice I always used a lens hood but it barely blocked the 50mm frame lines. The 35mm Summilux is almost as bad. Plus the weight balance with the Canon is much better.

Absolutely correct!!

Hahahaha. Not quite. But probably getting there.

We would call that an addiction!! Great news on the lens. What are you mounting the lenses on?

@@WalkLikeAlice The vintage lenses are inexpensive. Most in very good condition probably cost me about $50 each and I've been collecting them since the seventies. Only a couple have cost me real money, an S-M-C Takumar 20mm f4.5 that I paid $230 for and a Minolta G 17-35mm f3.5 that I paid $400 for. Changing the lens on my camera keeps the photographic experience fresh. I'm always learning. I'm always challenged. The cameras I use are a Sony a7II and a Sony a850 DSLR, both of which I had to replace two years ago when they were stolen together with my most expensive Zeiss lenses which were not replaced, a 24mm f2 Distagon and a 16-80mm zoom. I really enjoy your content and your photographs are excellent. As others have mentioned, yours is a blog by a photographer for photographers. Thanks for your comment. As it happens I was just out with my new lens and took this photo that I think shows the lens' quality: [url=flic.kr/p/2pKdoYR][img]live.staticflickr.com/65535/53653926185_392a959b6b_b.jpg[/img][/url][url=flic.kr/p/2pKdoYR]The Troubadour[/url] by [url=www.flickr.com/photos/101244128@N07/]William Bolton[/url], on Flickr

Damn those crowds 🤪

@@WalkLikeAlice Blocking the view with damn selfies!

Yes. A lot of the images in the video are shot from the hip in this video. It’s easier with AF but doable with manual. Set to 5m/f11 and practice your angles.

@@WalkLikeAlice Thanks so much.

I haven’t but I would be interested in one if I was buying again. The size alone would be appealing.

Coincidence. I think that we are attracted to things that are interesting to us so we notice them more. If someone put 1960s decorative glass in the background, Sarah would notice but I wouldn’t. My guitars are in my office so they are out of the way of the dog!! Otherwise they would be all over the house. Don’t forget Colin Greenwood, Bryan Adams, Jack White too.

@@WalkLikeAlice Good point. Love the vids

@@WalkLikeAlice Agreed. I like cycling and notice whenever a photographer has a bike in the background, which is more often than you might think.

I have no idea about crop sensors. This is 50mm on full frame.

The higher the sensor resolution, the more detail it resolves. So any focusing issues or movement will be exaggerated by this extra resolution. If you shoot the same image with the same shutter speed/ focus with an 18MP camera and a 60MP you might not see any slight shake or softness with the 18MP camera but you will with the 60MP.

​@@WalkLikeAlice Well, again, yes and no. This isn't the case if you're viewing the images in the same way - if you aren't cropping and you're displaying it on the same display or print size they should appear essentially the same, unless the display is out-resolving the lower resolution camera/setting. Dropping the resolution of your recorded images on the same camera absolutely won't affect how much motion blur you're getting if you are displaying the images at the same resolution. So there's no reason to change the resolution in-camera. If the display medium IS out-resolving the resolution of the camera you'll just get a global lower level of perceived sharpness, which means that yes, you will be able to better distinguish areas that are out-of-focus or motion blurred vs just not sharp when you look at the high res image on the same display. The only time a higher resolution image will exacerbate missed focus or motion blur is if its being viewed at a higher resolution than the lower resolution image, either through cropping, or through the display medium being able to resolve that resolution (like a high res monitor, or blown up quite large.) Since 18 megapixels already exceeds the maximum resolution of a typical 4K desktop display, you will not be able to detect a difference in blur between the 18 megapixel image and the 60 megapixel image when viewed at the same size. They will look identical, assuming the camera is correctly binning things down when it shoots. TL;DR: you're recording the same amount of motion blur no matter what, the question is how much can your eye resolve it when looking at the image. What matters there is how you're looking at the photos not how you're taking them. Regardless, there's no reason to shoot at a lower resolution to avoid this problem.

This is interesting. fstoppers.com/education/understanding-relationship-between-resolution-details-and-shutter-speed-489033

@@WalkLikeAlice yeah the article gets into what I'm saying to an extent: higher resolution means smaller resolved details. But you can only see those details if you view the photo in a way that allows you to see them. Most often that means cropping. From a practical standpoint there's no real merit to dropping resolution in camera to try to avoid motion blur, as dropping it in post or simply not cropping or viewing it not zoomed or large will have the same effect.

Sarah is also left eye dominant. The idea of using both eyes open is one of those things which doesn’t work for everyone due to the magnification of the viewfinder. Unless you get an M6 with a 0.85 mag. Then it works much better. The rangefinder design means the viewfinder will always be offset. So I guess Leica had to choose one side or the other, and as most people are right eye dominant, they chose that. You should always shoot with your dominant eye. Sarah always uses an external viewfinder so that she can look with both eyes if she needs to. I always work with one eye closed so there is no advantage to me in having the viewfinder to one side.

@@WalkLikeAlice Well said. I see. This reply makes me think for a long time. And I still have a little more to figure out. But I do appreciate your thoughtful and concise response. You’re a great mentor. Thanks.

@@WalkLikeAlice The video I’ve watched on KZfaq is called: Joel Meyerowitz - 'What you put in the frame determines the photograph'

Not really. I’ve had the lenses for such a long time, it all seems second nature.

It does and thanks for the comment.

Nah. It’s basically 35mm

Yep. Both great lenses.

@@WalkLikeAlice im bot quite fond of 24,25 and 28 for street. Too limiting in framing.

Stree must be flexible and fast to change framing portrait and landscape

The title of the video is “how and why I shoot with a 50mm”. 🙂

Yes. It’s not exactly the same but close enough for practical purposes.

35 also. Capable to easily frame horizontal or vertical.

And 35 capable to do indoor cafe shoot

Your English is better than a lot of people where English is their first language!!

@@WalkLikeAlice Thank you very much!

Cheap as chips too.